Re: [tcpm] How to improve TCP efficiency in a large RTT context?

Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org> Fri, 20 November 2015 14:50 UTC

Return-Path: <mallman@icir.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD4691B3156 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 06:50:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.303
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.303 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id khyc-mXOCp9d for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 06:50:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU [192.150.186.11]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94F411B3154 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 06:50:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (envoy.icir.org [192.150.187.30]) by fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (8.12.11.20060614/8.12.11) with ESMTP id tAKEoXvG007149; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 06:50:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lawyers.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lawyers.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E8B4329551E; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:50:32 -0500 (EST)
To: SALLANTIN Renaud <renaud.sallantin@thalesaleniaspace.com>
From: Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>
In-Reply-To: <9b39fe7d-76ff-4baa-be42-32d2e58833a8@THSONEA01HUB02P.one.grp>
Organization: International Computer Science Institute (ICSI)
Song-of-the-Day: Thunderstruck
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-------459435943823349593450"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:50:32 -0500
Message-ID: <26827.1448031032@lawyers.icir.org>
Sender: mallman@icir.org
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/09efkTKi0zjKcSooy6rexWHcX8Q>
Cc: "'tcpm@ietf.org'" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] How to improve TCP efficiency in a large RTT context?
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mallman@icir.org
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:50:39 -0000

> · Is there room to increase even more the Initial Window? Several
> major players already use IW=32 or higher

I'll just flog this again: http://www.icir.org/mallman/pubs/LAJW07/

:)

(I chaired TCPM when that came out.  The IETF subsequently wised up
and found better people.  Lars was the TSV AD at the time.  His
comment on the above when it was presented at the workshop was
something along the lines of: can we really have a TCPM chair who
would propose an arbitrary IW?!  I think he meant it as a joke.  I
took it as a compliment. :) )

But, in all seriousness, we don't need to specify the IW.  Or, how
it gets set.  As long as the rest of CC is in place, there are
consequences for being too aggressive that will keep things
reasonable.  IMHO.  Not to mention that the actual impact of lousy
choices isn't all that bad.  And, of course, if we never had to
discuss the IW again, that'd be cool, too. :)

allman


--
http://www.icir.org/mallman/